bbfreak:Nope. MYTH 1: Most retail workers are teenagers with little education or experience. Not so: according to the National Retail Federation, 70 percent of workers are older than 25 and more than half have a college education.

How many of that 70% are management... retired... second wage earners... working a second job... yada yada yada...

Sure... lets raise everyones' wages, then everything will have to cost more, like food, gas rent... hey, guess what, you raise now costs you more in expenses that what you were paying before. In fact, you now have LESS money to spend after you take care of all the things you need just to live!

real_headhoncho:Sure... lets raise everyones' wages, then everything will have to cost more, like food, gas rent... hey, guess what, you raise now costs you more in expenses that what you were paying before. In fact, you now have LESS money to spend after you take care of all the things you need just to live!

KimNorth:Carn: I think paying people a wage that they could actually live off of is a horrible idea, because I'm a soulless vampire who would murder my mother for a quarter.

Fast food jobs were never meant for adults to make a living wage at....they are for teens and young people living at home going to school to work as a "FIRST" job because it is a skill less job. If you can't make it flipping hamburgers then get your GED and stop blaming everyone else. The Government will give you grants for a trade school.

In addition, I aint talkin about me. I'm a software developer in NoVA, I'm doing just fine thanks. If your business can't afford to pay people a wage they can live on then your business shouldn't exist.

TuteTibiImperes:Crew payroll is listed at $540,000. Considering some employees are already making minimum wage, let's say we need to make it $1,000,000 in payroll expenses to pay everyone $15/hour.

A big area I can see right off the bat is 'rent and fees'. That number seems awfully high just for rent on the land/building, so franchise fees are likely pretty dang high. An independent place wouldn't have to pay franchise fees, so let's say that they could search for a more affordable location, get rid of the franchise fees, and cut that number in half. Boom, we're already at $735,700 for payroll. Food costs are listed at 30%, most restaurants try to stay closer to 20%. Since the crew is being paid more we can find more skilled workers who can break down raw ingredients to save money on food costs, bake bread fresh, grind meat, etc, to make a higher quality product and reduce costs. Going to 20% food costs would bring the payroll figure up to $1,005,700, we're there already without even looking into savings on paper products, insurance, advertising or landscaping (some additional savings would be necessary due to the higher payroll taxes, but the point is, it can be done). That's it, no loss in profit margins, no raising prices. A place willing to operate on a lower total annual profit or willing to raise prices some could do even better.

If you eliminate the franchise fees, then you lose the name and you lose customers who are going to McDonalds for the consistent experience you get there. Sure, the golden arcs at McDowels is a possibility but if you're the sort who's going to skimp there you're going to skimp on wages too.

Carn:In addition, I aint talkin about me. I'm a software developer in NoVA, I'm doing just fine thanks. If your business can't afford to pay people a wage they can live on then your business shouldn't exist.

What type of software do you make? Is it meant for government employees/contractors?

fortheloveof:Lets see... McDonald's spends 34% instead of 17%. Dollar menu becomes 1.17 menu however their workers have all DOUBLED what they make going from 7.25 to 14.50, hm... in economics that would be called a fantastic deal. Indeed I've seen companies spend more for less output on other projects.

So why not on their employees? The inflation effect that is claimed as force such huge production raises is much less than the increase in wages meaning there is more spending power for the employee. Heck that employee just might finally be able to feed his family at a McDonald's once a week now (meaning more business).

This is why my kids went to private school.

You assume, incorrectly, that doubling wages will have no effect on other costs, or that passing just those higher labor costs will have no effect on their p/e ratio, stock price, or borrowing costs.

The fact is, if you double the wages, you're going to have to come close to doubling the price in order to not lose money in the deal. Open a lemon-aid stand and see for yourself.

ferretman:FTA: "In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its <a data-cke-saved-href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/04/news/companies/mc donalds_jobs/index.ht m" target="_hplink">more than 500,000 U.S. employees."

Yes...there are no other costs besides employee pay and benefits. What the student hasn't taken into account, if minimum wage was doubled, the rising costs associated with the suppliers, the ones who manufacture the beef patties, chicken nuggets, soda syrup, shake mix, french fries, fish sandwiches, packaging suppliers, etc. These are all manufactured by other companies under contract to, in this case, McDonalds and are typically union-shops (at least on the east coast). If everyone's wages increase the product cost will increase and there will be less jobs.

Because if the universe would grind to halt if every jackoff with a desk at any given corporation didn't get his obligatory new Mercedes bonus.

whatshisname:real_headhoncho: Sure... lets raise everyones' wages, then everything will have to cost more, like food, gas rent... hey, guess what, you raise now costs you more in expenses that what you were paying before. In fact, you now have LESS money to spend after you take care of all the things you need just to live!

davidphogan:Carn: In addition, I aint talkin about me. I'm a software developer in NoVA, I'm doing just fine thanks. If your business can't afford to pay people a wage they can live on then your business shouldn't exist.

What type of software do you make? Is it meant for government employees/contractors?

Without boring the crap out of you I make custom web sites (mostly intranets and extranets) for private companies based on Microsoft technologies. Lately, my client is a large law firm. My company does do government stuff but I'm on the commercial side (and I prefer it that way).

WhyteRaven74:ferretman: Successfully self employed, could hire but taxes on small businesses is 39.6% (Federal - thanks Obama), plus state taxes...also have mortgage costs and utility costs and other employe's costs plus their healthcare.

If increases in wages lead to fewer jobs, could you explain the 50s, when wages grew across the board and there weren't job losses? Also covers the 60s.

You have to remember from the 50's to the 80's most of the world was still recovering from WWII (~3/4 of the world was effected). During the 50' & 60's the US was the 'worlds' manufacturing base. That is how all those great pensions and high wages were available/possible. Now that the 'rest of the world' is able to do their own manufacturing and the economy is now Global those great wages and pensions are no longer a viable option.

TuteTibiImperes:Since the crew is being paid more we can find more skilled workers who can break down raw ingredients to save money on food costs, bake bread fresh, grind meat, etc, to make a higher quality product and reduce costs.

funny!so you are going to change what the food is? How are you doing that so cheaply?You are also going to put the lesser skilled workers out of a job which is not the goal

If you eliminate the franchise fees, then you lose the name and you lose customers who are going to McDonalds for the consistent experience you get there. Sure, the golden arcs at McDowels is a possibility but if you're the sort who's going to skimp there you're going to skimp on wages too.

True, the McDonalds name drives business on its own, but if you start out smaller than a full-speed McDonalds franchise, doing less business to begin with, many of your costs will be lower - food costs, paper products, some insurance, utilities, labor costs, etc, all scale with business. Plus, if you work in-store yourself running things day to day instead of just a franchisee picking up a check, you can reduce management labor costs.

BojanglesPaladin:ScaryBottles: Spoken like a true idiot, what about people like me who have degrees but still can't find a job?

Do you currently work at a fast food joint? If not, why not? That's an available job, right?

ScaryBottles: Since I got out of school I have managed a coffee shop, worked at a TV station as a sound engineer and ran a register at a pr0n shop.

Not to pick on you, but maybe someone who clearly lacks direction and isn't capable of holding down a steady job shouldn't be lecturing anyone about professional employment.

I'm teasing, but seriously. You got a degree in HR. Who told you that was a path to riches and reliable employment?

I wanted to go into research but yeah there are even fewer jobs there. Heres the really hilarious part my other job is guitar player.

bojon:ScaryBottles: Fade2black: You are not entitled to anything, snowflake. Fast food is a job a monkey could do. You are a wage slave. Fast Food and Retail are jobs that get you to learn the real world, then you get off your ass and get educated to get out of the doldrums. If you decided to drop out of high school or you can't go to school because you decided to have 3 kids, that is what normal people call "poor life choices".

Spoken like a true idiot, what about people like me who have degrees but still can't find a job? And before you're retarded reactionary mind leaps to it I sent out 14 paper copies of my resume and 32 via email yesterday morning as I do on a monthly basis. I'll get if I'm lucky four or five calls for interviews against desperate middle aged boomers with literally ten times as much experience in my field than I do. Who now due the shiat economy are willing to go to work for entry level wages same as me. They have families and boats and mortgages so they need that job a lot more than I do and people doing interviews know that. So guess what happens next? Spoiler alert they give the job to the guy with 20 years experience and incentive to stay put. Since I got out of school I have managed a coffee shop, worked at a TV station as a sound engineer and ran a register at a pr0n shop. My degree is in human resource management and demography.

Sadly the pr0n shop paid the best it was a depressing day when they closed their doors.

Methinks you should have left off that part of your resume.

Of course I don't include my shameful time in the toilet that is daytime television. I'm broke not dumb.

tenpoundsofcheese:TuteTibiImperes: Since the crew is being paid more we can find more skilled workers who can break down raw ingredients to save money on food costs, bake bread fresh, grind meat, etc, to make a higher quality product and reduce costs.

funny!so you are going to change what the food is? How are you doing that so cheaply?You are also going to put the lesser skilled workers out of a job which is not the goal

That particular argument wasn't about changing a McDonalds, it was about building a competitor that could operate in a $15/hour wage space if that drove local McDonalds franchises out of business.

The goal is to provide the people working there with a living wage. Start with the top tier of the current fast-food employment pool, those who are probably overqualified to be working at such a place anyway, to get the ball rolling, and have them train others on the job as you expand.

There's nothing so difficult about cooking that anyone can't learn to do it. Plus, if you're paying more, you can expect more from your employees. Having a job that actually pays a decent wage will make them more motivated instead of just clock punchers waiting until quitting time.

TuteTibiImperes:Pray 4 Mojo: TuteTibiImperes: That's it, no loss in profit margins, no raising prices. A place willing to operate on a lower total annual profit or willing to raise prices some could do even better.

So when does your restaurant open?

No farking way I'm getting into that business. Restaurants have one of the highest failure rates for any new business. I was just pointing out the numbers could work in a rough way.

Mr. Eugenides:

If you eliminate the franchise fees, then you lose the name and you lose customers who are going to McDonalds for the consistent experience you get there. Sure, the golden arcs at McDowels is a possibility but if you're the sort who's going to skimp there you're going to skimp on wages too.

True, the McDonalds name drives business on its own, but if you start out smaller than a full-speed McDonalds franchise, doing less business to begin with, many of your costs will be lower - food costs, paper products, some insurance, utilities, labor costs, etc, all scale with business. Plus, if you work in-store yourself running things day to day instead of just a franchisee picking up a check, you can reduce management labor costs.

You honestly think a small shop has lower costs than a giant franchise? It costs far, far less to ship 1,000 hamburger's worth of ingredients from McD's warehouses to you than it does to get the stuff yourself. That is why big stores are cheaper.

I can only dream. Banks getting their asses whipped for their excesses and regulations installed to keep things in line, major government funded infrastructure initiatives to get more people working so we can rebuild the economy and our physical structure at the same time, unions getting the chance to rebuild themselves and make inroads in traditional 'right to fire you for any reason and treat you like shiat' states, the wage gap starting to contract with average employee wages rising and executive wages falling, safety net programs being fully funded, the wealthy paying a larger share of the taxes, the middle class being re-established, etc... It would be glorious, and it's only one midterm election away if things go right.

DrPainMD:oren0: Morelix looked at McDonald's 2012 annual report and discovered that only 17.1 percent of the fast-food giant's revenue goes toward salaries and benefits. In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its more than 500,000 U.S. employees.

Thus, if McDonald's executives wanted to double the salaries of all of its employees and keep profits and other expenses the same, it would need to increase prices by just 17 cents per dollar, according to Morelix.

As has been pointed out above, this is a total failure of economics. Assuming that a 17% increase in prices would result in a 17% increase in revenue is idiocy, because the increased price will result in lower demand and therefore lower sales. If the original statement were true, McDonalds would just raise their prices 17% and earn that much more profit.

Not to mention that if you double the pay of the lowest paid, you're going to have to raise everybody's pay, as supervisors and managers aren't going to work for the same (or less) than the line cooks. And, it's going to increase the p/e ratio and lower the price of your stock (if it took a $1 investment to make $1.25, and now it takes a $1.17 investment to make the same $1.25, investors are going to flee). By the same token, your borrowing costs are going to skyrocket, as you make back much less on each borrowed dollar. The chain reaction goes on and on.

Short version: the person who conducted the "study" is an idiot. "Labor costs are 17 cents per dollar, so doubling wages will only add 17% to the price" is something that nobody who's taken even an intro to business, economics or finance would say.

You do know that the study was based off of raising the entire employee pools wages by 100% right? From the line cooks to the CEO...

BojanglesPaladin:leadmetal: If people are willing to pay more why isn't the price higher now?Are these corporations run by dumb farks who are leaving money on the table?

Perhaps you will notice a rational middle ground between your original assertions that companies will do anything to avoid a price increase and my observation that prices can and are increased in small increments over time with no negative affect on sales.

You said McDonalds would absorb labor costs rather than increase the price of a BigMac. And yet, nearly every single year, they increased the price of a BigMac, even during large stretches where there was no increase in minimum wages. Did you notice that I provided a 25 year breakdown?

leadmetal: I've been developing product for many years now. The last thing to change is retail price. Never seen retail price just go up because costs went up.

All well and good. I'm willing to just grant that you are a veritable maestro of retail market economics. But you said McDonalds's would do anything rather than raise prices. And yet they do so constantly and regularly. I can't speak to what you have seen, but the facts seem to contradict your assertion. I'm sorry.

I stated that raising prices was a last resort. Show me that they did not do everything in their power not to raise prices. Labor is not the only thing that increases year over year with inflation. The raw food, energy, taxes, and countless other line items also go up.

Every product I've ever worked on was to not increase the price. Every single one. Never once did I work for a company that shrugged and just raised the price on the shelf because the price of steel went up or labor went up or whatever happened to raw materials, parts, energy, and so on. Often employees in various functions have been put to work to take cost out to compensate. Changing vendors on parts, redesigning to eliminate parts, use cheaper processes, take out assembly labor, countless activities and work just to tread water.

MD's has clearly done all that and more. They've cheapened their product, they've centralized processing of the food, they do preparation steps on a mass automated scale, so forth and so on. The cost cutting is obvious. It's why I've eaten there once in 20 years. It's crap food. It used to be halfway decent for the price when I was kid. Now it's just crap IMO. My dad tells me when he worked there he had to make the fries from potato that arrived in sacks. Fresh. Daily. Can you even get that anywhere now without paying $5 or more for an order of fries? What was it back in the early 60s? a nickel? They apparently cut every penny they can figure out how to cut in the last 50 years.

Your table is missing the why's and how fors. You're arguing that the price went up so it can go up more.Thus what you're telling me is that MD's is run by idiots. Idiots who left money on the table for years. Who didn't know how to price their product for maximum profit. That's the only way prices can go up arbitrarily without concern to sales, without doing everything in their power to keep them the same. It means they were leaving money on the table. Prove they are idiots and then we'll be in agreement. If people are willing to pay $4.67 for a big mac today, why isn't it $4.67? Or in other terms, why wasn't it the 2013 price in 2011? Or the 2011 price in 2005? Folks presume they pay labor poorly because they are greedy bastards but aren't greedy bastards about setting their prices correctly for maximum profit. It doesn't make sense. They are conflicting assumptions unless MD's is run by idiots. And I've seen and read about companies run by idiots who left money on the table but squeezed wages*. Somehow I don't think MD's is one of them, companies that big usually have people who know how to set prices, but if you can show they are idiots, have at it.

*Being walmarted is a classic example of companies that don't know how to set prices correctly.

My first job was at age 14. True Value Hardware in Swanton, VT. I think it was 1986? 2 bucks an hour under the table. Second job, minimum wage, at a full service gas station. Cold in the winter here. Worked all through high school at minimum wage, so could have gas for my car and to buy really cheap beer. Everyone did. It was how we got money.

Kids really don't even do this stuff any more do they? This is why we fail.

edflyer:DrPainMD: oren0: Morelix looked at McDonald's 2012 annual report and discovered that only 17.1 percent of the fast-food giant's revenue goes toward salaries and benefits. In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its more than 500,000 U.S. employees.

Thus, if McDonald's executives wanted to double the salaries of all of its employees and keep profits and other expenses the same, it would need to increase prices by just 17 cents per dollar, according to Morelix.

As has been pointed out above, this is a total failure of economics. Assuming that a 17% increase in prices would result in a 17% increase in revenue is idiocy, because the increased price will result in lower demand and therefore lower sales. If the original statement were true, McDonalds would just raise their prices 17% and earn that much more profit.

Not to mention that if you double the pay of the lowest paid, you're going to have to raise everybody's pay, as supervisors and managers aren't going to work for the same (or less) than the line cooks. And, it's going to increase the p/e ratio and lower the price of your stock (if it took a $1 investment to make $1.25, and now it takes a $1.17 investment to make the same $1.25, investors are going to flee). By the same token, your borrowing costs are going to skyrocket, as you make back much less on each borrowed dollar. The chain reaction goes on and on.

Short version: the person who conducted the "study" is an idiot. "Labor costs are 17 cents per dollar, so doubling wages will only add 17% to the price" is something that nobody who's taken even an intro to business, economics or finance would say.

You do know that the study was based off of raising the entire employee pools wages by 100% right? From the line cooks to the CEO...

It doesn't matter. It's still going to raise the cost of the final product way more than 17%.

/If you work at Mcdonalds in an attempt to support anyone other than yourself, at some point, you failed at life.

According to the sidebar article the average age of fast food workers is 28. You think we should just write off those people as "failed" and not consider seeing to it they have a reasonable means to contribute back to society?

Yes. If you are 28 and working the McD's counter you probably deserve to be there.

Depends.

There are losers and there are motivated people down on their luck.

I agree w/the part I highlighted. But what is the split on that?

95%/5%.

The answer really makes all the difference in my opinion on the subject and I'd suggest its closer to 50/50. Maybe it depends on what one considers "down on their luck".

Am not RTFT but I wonder how many derpers are intentionally ignoring the fact that equal bargaining power is a prerequisite to an efficiently operating free market, and are resorting to every red herring in the book to avoid addressing said fact...

/doesn't mean that legislating 2x the wages is necessarily the solution//buyers of labor (employers) and sellers of labor (employees) must be contracting wages/compensation on a level negotiating field///does mean that equilibrium wages are artificially depressed due to the exorbitant leverage buyers of labor have over sellers of labor//does mean that we aren't living in anything resembling an efficiently operating free market environment/does mean that mcdonald's shareholders are the only ones winning this race to the bottom and that you dumbshiats should quit white knighting them

bbfreak:To answer your question would mean accepting your faulty logic, so I'm not going to answer. I do have a question for you though. So its OK to you that there are so many homeless people, people who haven't been to a doctor in year, can't afford to send their kids to college, etc? Scrapping by is OK to you? That is the embodiment of a great nation that treats its poorest like moochers/worthless bums? I think not.

More emoting and misdirection. My question is a practical and logical one. If government is going to make no effort result a rather good standard of living, what's the point of achieving marginally more or the same by putting in a shiat ton of effort?

Imagine for a moment you are working for a company and you're just working your ass off. You make them say, three million dollars. At the end of your first year you get the same bonus as everyone else in the company and the same raise. Imagine if this goes on for a couple three years. What do you do? Do you keep busting your ass or do you reduce your effort to the level of the other people knowing your raise won't change, your bonus won't change, and you won't get promoted just like in the years you busted your ass?

So what you're telling me is that a no effort, no skill job should make something that can minimally support a family, say $40K/yr. Now what's the motivation to get an engineering degree and start at $45K/yr when you can not work your ass off and make 40K? No 60 hour weeks, no trips to industrial china, no bullshiat. Just flip burgers or put tab a into slot b. No years of school and student loan debt either.

As to the homeless and such, they are a product of the corporatist economy and countless interventions like the minimum wage. They can't get on the job ladder any more. Their labor, the risk of employing them, isn't worth the minimum. Opportunity is restricted for people who aren't in the right social circles. Like a homeless person can likely get all the permits and licenses to start his own business to pull himself up. Minimum wage patches over the loss of opportunity to a degree for some people but in the process knocks others down and out entirely. The higher it is set, the greater the distortions.

Then there is the expense of the medical cartel and so forth, again the result of countless government interventions over a century's time or more. Keep patching but don't expect not to create more problems even if the present ones are improved upon.

I have little objection if the minimum wage is set really high, say $200 an hour. That way I can take a job that doesn't demand so much of me. Maybe I'll come home from work with energy to do more than post on fark like I did when I had simple jobs. Sounds like a good life to me. So get to work... hell I might do it if you can get it to only $50/hr.

Thunderpipes:My first job was at age 14. True Value Hardware in Swanton, VT. I think it was 1986? 2 bucks an hour under the table. Second job, minimum wage, at a full service gas station. Cold in the winter here. Worked all through high school at minimum wage, so could have gas for my car and to buy really cheap beer. Everyone did. It was how we got money.

Kids really don't even do this stuff any more do they? This is why we fail.

You may think you have my political beliefs pretty well pinned down because of 5 posts in one thread about McDonalds employees... but you don't.

I'm willing to help people that need help. However... I refuse to accept that I need to subsidize stupidity, laziness and poor decisions in order to help those people.

also... life hard... and it's not fair.

Sure, the health care system is broken, but thats not the point here. You are willing to label people losers who may only be victims of our broken health care system and seem unwilling to even pay an extra marginal amount for goods/services that would help solve the issue.

The troubling thing for me about your position is that in principal I agree with you, but in practice you seem to have a very different and too inclusive definition of "stupidity, laziness and poor".

ferretman:FTA: "In other words, for every dollar McDonald's earns, a little more than 17 cents goes toward the income and benefits of its <a data-cke-saved-href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/04/news/companies/mc donalds_jobs/index.ht m" target="_hplink">more than 500,000 U.S. employees."

Yes...there are no other costs besides employee pay and benefits. What the student hasn't taken into account, if minimum wage was doubled, the rising costs associated with the suppliers, the ones who manufacture the beef patties, chicken nuggets, soda syrup, shake mix, french fries, fish sandwiches, packaging suppliers, etc. These are all manufactured by other companies under contract to, in this case, McDonalds and are typically union-shops (at least on the east coast). If everyone's wages increase the product cost will increase and there will be less jobs.

Find me a union that has ensured it's members make minimum wage, dumb ass. All you've done is argue that unions are good for people, which is good for the economy.

gameshowhost:Am not RTFT but I wonder how many derpers are intentionally ignoring the fact that equal bargaining power is a prerequisite to an efficiently operating free market, and are resorting to every red herring in the book to avoid addressing said fact...

/doesn't mean that legislating 2x the wages is necessarily the solution//buyers of labor (employers) and sellers of labor (employees) must be contracting wages/compensation on a level negotiating field///does mean that equilibrium wages are artificially depressed due to the exorbitant leverage buyers of labor have over sellers of labor//does mean that we aren't living in anything resembling an efficiently operating free market environment/does mean that mcdonald's shareholders are the only ones winning this race to the bottom and that you dumbshiats should quit white knighting them

leadmetal:bbfreak: To answer your question would mean accepting your faulty logic, so I'm not going to answer. I do have a question for you though. So its OK to you that there are so many homeless people, people who haven't been to a doctor in year, can't afford to send their kids to college, etc? Scrapping by is OK to you? That is the embodiment of a great nation that treats its poorest like moochers/worthless bums? I think not.

More emoting and misdirection. My question is a practical and logical one. If government is going to make no effort result a rather good standard of living, what's the point of achieving marginally more or the same by putting in a shiat ton of effort?

Imagine for a moment you are working for a company and you're just working your ass off. You make them say, three million dollars. At the end of your first year you get the same bonus as everyone else in the company and the same raise. Imagine if this goes on for a couple three years. What do you do? Do you keep busting your ass or do you reduce your effort to the level of the other people knowing your raise won't change, your bonus won't change, and you won't get promoted just like in the years you busted your ass?

So what you're telling me is that a no effort, no skill job should make something that can minimally support a family, say $40K/yr. Now what's the motivation to get an engineering degree and start at $45K/yr when you can not work your ass off and make 40K? No 60 hour weeks, no trips to industrial china, no bullshiat. Just flip burgers or put tab a into slot b. No years of school and student loan debt either.

As to the homeless and such, they are a product of the corporatist economy and countless interventions like the minimum wage. They can't get on the job ladder any more. Their labor, the risk of employing them, isn't worth the minimum. Opportunity is restricted for people who aren't in the right social circles. Like a homeless person can likely get all the permits and licenses to star ...

If it helps you any, most of the people making those huge salaries don't earn that money either.

tenpoundsofcheese:gameshowhost: Am not RTFT but I wonder how many derpers are intentionally ignoring the fact that equal bargaining power is a prerequisite to an efficiently operating free market, and are resorting to every red herring in the book to avoid addressing said fact...

/doesn't mean that legislating 2x the wages is necessarily the solution//buyers of labor (employers) and sellers of labor (employees) must be contracting wages/compensation on a level negotiating field///does mean that equilibrium wages are artificially depressed due to the exorbitant leverage buyers of labor have over sellers of labor//does mean that we aren't living in anything resembling an efficiently operating free market environment/does mean that mcdonald's shareholders are the only ones winning this race to the bottom and that you dumbshiats should quit white knighting them